>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> > This is a complete strawman. No one's said anything about adding 150+
>> > countries. Maybe two or three, or even half a dozen, but not 150+.
>> ANd, incidentally, if any tags are permitted, I shall insist
>> on at least non-india, non-bhutan, non-nepal, non-sri-lanka,
>> non-pakistan, and non-myanmar tags (the latter shall probably cover
>> half the distrivution).
Anthony> Personally, I'm developing a bit of a pet peeve against
Anthony> people who insist that things be done while at the same time
Anthony> refusing to do them themselves.
Is this relevant to this discussion? Are you accusing me of
that practice?
Anthony> Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
Anthony> list of which packages all these tags apply to, and which
Anthony> they don't?
Heh. Sure. I'll do it once. And your proposal has no way of
ensuring the tags are either accurate, or are maintained.
Anthony> If not, you've got no business insisting on their existance.
Oh, go take a flying leap of the high horse.
>> I am sure the chinese folks wowuld like these
>> tags too. Why should we continue to have a tendency to lean towards
>> providing infrastructure support to the us/european regions? (I can
>> just see the enthusiasm on the linux-india mailing list).
Anthony> Because we have a large number of developers from the US and
Anthony> European regions, because we have large numbers of users
Anthony> from the US and European regions, and because all those
Anthony> countries' laws are similar enough that coping with the
Anthony> additional non-<...> tags should actually be feasible.
You shall be provided with the non- tags for the countries I
mentioned. And I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. I
think the chinese and japanese debian populations have been very
active, and have done wonders in internationalization efforts; your
estimate that only US and european (and presumably au and nz) tags
are gonna get done is an insult.
Anthony> ``You can't have non-DE tags because no one would be able to manage
Anthony> non-IN!''
Anthony> And sure, if someone *is* able to reasonably keep track of
Anthony> which packages are legal in India, well, then there's no
Anthony> issue with having a non-IN tag.
Oh, so not there is going to be a a requireent that there
shall be a team of people conversant with intellectual property law
behind every such tag who shall keep abreast of changes in the laws?
Espescally that the internet is driving some rather drastic changes
in that field?
Great.
Anthony> More packages increase the risk of us having bugs in our distribution
too.
Anthony> Personally, I suspect no one's going to be bothered to
Anthony> maintain the tags for Germany or the UK, let alone anywhere
Anthony> else, so I suspect this is a non issue. At this point I'm
Anthony> fairly convinced that there aren't any realistic legal or
Anthony> technical issues against it though.
I see. scalability, feasibility, correctness, and
maintainability are not technical issues we need deal with.
My objection remains.
manoj
--
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
Voltaire
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
